Man Up--Repealing Healthcare

[Townhallsavoy]

Have you seen this 85/15 part of the bill? 

Apparently, insurance companies have to switch from the already regulated 65/45.  Essentially, they were using 65% of their money to pay hospital bills and 45% to pay their employees/keep the business going.  Now, 85% of their money HAS to go towards paying for healthcare.  15% to pay salaries and keep the power company paid.

This bill is grounds for a total takeover of the government.  You thought Clinton's penis caused an uproar?  This bill is all about control. 

It just seems like such an easy fix to get the uninsured insured.  But the government has now set up a plan to take over a shit-ton more than just people's health insurance.  They're going to bankrupt these companies to the point that they HAVE to turn to the government to stay open.

Also, it's just great for the Democrats who passed this that most people don't renew their insurance plans before Jan. 1.  So no one will be able to feel the effects of this bill prior to the elections.

A lot of this bill is becoming more and more clear.  Absolutely ridiculous. 

[GH2001]

This bill is grounds for a total takeover of the government. 

It just seems like such an easy fix to get the uninsured insured.  But the government has now set up a plan to take over a poop-ton more than just people's health insurance.  They're going to bankrupt these companies to the point that they HAVE to turn to the government to stay open.

A lot of this bill is becoming more and more clear.  Absolutely ridiculous. 

THS- read my post that Lurking Tiger quoted above.  This could have been done much simpler without the govt control piece. All Obama does is prance around using the popular points from this bill to brag to his sheeple constituency  - he fails to leave out the govt takeover part in his teleprompter talking points. Some people are so naive not to see through it. I'm like Sani - I think this is gonna get nasty before its over in the form of succession talks. Fine by me.

[Tiger Wench]

THS- read my post that Lurking Tiger quoted above.  This could have been done much simpler without the govt control piece. All Obama does is prance around using the popular points from this bill to brag to his sheeple constituency  - he fails to leave out the govt takeover part in his teleprompter talking points. Some people are so naive not to see through it. I'm like Sani - I think this is gonna get nasty before its over in the form of succession talks. Fine by me.

Do you mean "secession", as in dissolution of the Union, or "succession", whereby Nancy Pelosi wipes out Obama and Biden so she can become Queen Bitch and complete her Masterplan For World Domination?

[GH2001]

Do you mean "secession", as in dissolution of the Union, or "succession", whereby Nancy Pelosi wipes out Obama and Biden so she can become Queen Bitch and complete her Masterplan For World Domination?

Sorry, qwerty got me on the Pearl.

Secession - yes. And then reconstruction. We would win this time. Resources are abundant down here now and people are mad as hell.

[bottomfeeder]

Just like during the Revolutionary war FEMA and DHS (who by the way didn't exist then, the demon spirit was there) would classify Alabama a a terrorist state and bomb us into the Stone Age like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[GarMan]

THS- read my post that Lurking Tiger quoted above.  This could have been done much simpler without the govt control piece. All Obama does is prance around using the popular points from this bill to brag to his sheeple constituency  - he fails to leave out the govt takeover part in his teleprompter talking points. Some people are so naive not to see through it. I'm like Sani - I think this is gonna get nasty before its over in the form of succession talks. Fine by me. 

Quick comments...

1. Eliminate Pre-existing clauses   

I don't completely agree with this, although I can see some limits on pre-existing conditions.  Looking towards a more capitalist-friendly solution, if you simply eliminated an insurance company's right to refuse certain customers, you'd end up putting the best insurance companies out of business.  Those with pre-existing conditions would do what we all do and seek out the best providers.  If the best providers were inundated with these customers, you'd be severely handicapping their ability to stay afloat.  Just something to consider... 

2. Eliminate cross state prevention clauses   

Not sure if I'm following you exactly...  Are you referencing the government's regulations preventing companies from operating across state lines.  Again, more government regulations just created additional problems.  Take these constraints out of the mix, and we'd literally have hundreds of potential providers to choose from...  More competition would be GREAT in the payer industry. 

3. Work to try to bring down the COST of the actual HC....which leads to
4. Tort reform. Put Ken Nugent and the rest of the ambulance chasing attorneys in their place. Dr's cant even afford to stay in business because of the cost of malpractice insurance. This is indeed the ROOT cause.   

Start with tort reform...  Institute loser pays (for all court costs and attorney's fees)...  Then, we can move on to the pharmas...

And lastly if needed - Insurance companies' business structures could be formed much like that of a charity or non-profit. Thus making profit NOT the main objective, but the actual healthcare. 

Not a chance...  I'm currently working at a non-profit insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.  I've never seen such mediocrity and inefficiency.  Their IT department is probably 3 times the size of that of a similar sized for-profit company, and their productivity is less than 50% of what it should be.  Their people are tremendously under-qualified and hopelessly apathetic.  They're just like the gubm'et.  Once you get a job there, it will take an act-of-God to get you out of there.  They purposely sell products that they know are losers, but they don't care because the federal and state governments will always bail them out for their Medicare Advantage products.  For-profit with moderate regulation is the only way to go here.

[Townhallsavoy]

I don't completely agree with this, although I can see some limits on pre-existing conditions.  Looking towards a more capitalist-friendly solution, if you simply eliminated an insurance company's right to refuse certain customers, you'd end up putting the best insurance companies out of business.  Those with pre-existing conditions would do what we all do and seek out the best providers.  If the best providers were inundated with these customers, you'd be severely handicapping their ability to stay afloat.  Just something to consider... 

I think there should be a definition of what qualifies as a pre-existing condition that affects insurance premiums. 

For example, I work with a lady who is 33 years old and got hit with breast cancer.  She's run marathons since college and leads a rather healthy lifestyle.  After she made it through breast cancer, her insurance went up due to a pre-existing condition.  It's by no means her fault that she got breast cancer, and she's still living a healthy life today.  Why should she have to pay more?  I don't agree with that at all.

On the other hand, a 375 pound man who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day should by all means have to pay more insurance than me.  There's no reason why tax payers should fund his life of unhealthy decisions. 

[Tiger Wench]

I think there should be a definition of what qualifies as a pre-existing condition that affects insurance premiums. 

For example, I work with a lady who is 33 years old and got hit with breast cancer.  She's run marathons since college and leads a rather healthy lifestyle.  After she made it through breast cancer, her insurance went up due to a pre-existing condition.  It's by no means her fault that she got breast cancer, and she's still living a healthy life today.  Why should she have to pay more?  I don't agree with that at all.

On the other hand, a 375 pound man who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day should by all means have to pay more insurance than me.  There's no reason why tax payers should fund his life of unhealthy decisions. 

This should also include people on maintenance medication who knowingly and willingly refuse to take the required meds.  I am specifically and with personal experience referring to diabetics who do not track their blood sugar or follow a diet.  I had a 300+ guy (father of a friend) who stayed with us during Katrina.  He would finish a FIFTH of Old Grandad every day with his high carb, high fat, high crap meals, and then inject himself with insulin between refills.  He lost one foot already.  He is a ticking time bomb. 

[Saniflush]

This should also include people on maintenance medication who knowingly and willingly refuse to take the required meds.  I am specifically and with personal experience referring to diabetics who do not track their blood sugar or follow a diet.  I had a 300+ guy (father of a friend) who stayed with us during Katrina.  He would finish a FIFTH of Old Grandad every day with his high carb, high fat, high crap meals, and then inject himself with insulin between refills.  He lost one foot already.  He is a ticking time bomb. 

If he is drinking Old Grandad he's already dead.

[GarMan]

I think there should be a definition of what qualifies as a pre-existing condition that affects insurance premiums. 

Agreed...  With some reasonable constraints...

For example, I work with a lady who is 33 years old and got hit with breast cancer.  She's run marathons since college and leads a rather healthy lifestyle.  After she made it through breast cancer, her insurance went up due to a pre-existing condition.  It's by no means her fault that she got breast cancer, and she's still living a healthy life today.  Why should she have to pay more?  I don't agree with that at all.

I do.  It may not sound nice of me to say that, but she had cancer.  She's a higher risk.  "Fault" should have nothing to do with it.  Why should the other customers have to cover that risk without any impact to her? 

On the other hand, a 375 pound man who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day should by all means have to pay more insurance than me.  There's no reason why tax payers should fund his life of unhealthy decisions. 

I could agree with that, but I'm not a fan of these silly "healthy living" programs. 

[GH2001]

Agreed...  With some reasonable constraints...
I do.  It may not sound nice of me to say that, but she had cancer.  She's a higher risk.  "Fault" should have nothing to do with it.  Why should the other customers have to cover that risk without any impact to her? 
I could agree with that, but I'm not a fan of these silly "healthy living" programs. 

But this is why the need to make the health insurance industry non profit is somewhat needed. Surplus - lower premiums. Shortfall - raise premiums. Run the place LIKE a profit corporation. Pay people competitive salaries and if they cant cut the mustard, fire em. GarMan - I dont think any agency will ever be as wasteful and inefficient as the Post Office. This could be done.  As far as the pre-existing conditions. I somewhat agree with both of you. I think Risk Pools would take care of this.  Boehner and McConnell have actually mentioned them and they sound like a great idea to me.

[GarMan]

GarMan - I dont think any agency will ever be as wasteful and inefficient as the Post Office. This could be done. 

Well, BCBSM was my earlier example...  I've also worked at CareFirst and WellPoint.  From my observations, these "insurance companies of last resort" are run worse than the Post Office.  I just don't buy the not-for-profit model.